Sometimes I think Lib is a bot. I don't know how he knows so much information and regurgitate it at will. He's probably a T-1000 and CGN is Skynet. They probably created him to store data and to maintain the site.

Sometimes I think Lib is a bot. I don't know how he knows so much information and regurgitate it at will. He's probably a T-1000 and CGN is Skynet. They probably created him to store data and to maintain the site.

Sometimes I think Lib is a bot. I don't know how he knows so much information and regurgitate it at will. He's probably a T-1000 and CGN is Skynet. They probably created him to store data and to maintain the site.

He/She might need an update here pretty soon based on the last comment.

Or maybe we got an Easter egg from the developers about a future soon to be released update. Maybe librarian is right and we will be waiting for SCOTUS to make a decision except that feature was not due to be released under this version of Librarian.

Ya know, kind of like when an early version of the next iPhone is spotted in public

I hope that the two conservative judges finished the majority opinion a long time ago, then they gave it to the one liberal judge so she can write her dissent, and she's dragging her feat and doesn't know what to write ..

Its seriously been nearly a year since orals and no decision reached or movement made?

To be honest it's going to take years before we can have that unlawful roster list removed even after the ninth circuit court decision. Think about what happened with the conceal carry case in CA. It has been years since that lawsuit was announced and we've yet to receive a conclusion. Let say we are lucky enough to get the 3 panel judge in the ninth circuit court to say the roster list is unlawful. Politicians in CA would most likely say that decision was wrong which would then lead the ninth circuit court to reevaluate the case but this time with more judges that are most likely say the roster list is lawful. We would then have to take this lawsuit to the supreme court and we all know how long that's going to take especially since the supreme court isn't taking any 2nd amendment related cases right now.

To be honest it's going to take years before we can have that unlawful roster list removed even after the ninth circuit court decision.

Just to pick at a nit here, there’s a difference between something being unlawful/illegal and something being unconstitutional.

If voters or the legislature pass a ballot measure or a bill respectively, and required procedures were followed, then constitutional or otherwise it isn’t illegal/unlawful.

Now, Cal DOJ maintains/administers the roster and they have adopted regulations for doing so. While it is possible (i.e. not nonsensical) to find something illegal with how they administer the roster (e.g. adding the Armatix to the roster a few years back may have been illegal) that is generally not what is being argued in these court cases.

To be honest it's going to take years before we can have that unlawful roster list removed even after the ninth circuit court decision.

The microstamping rule is one thing--since there is no technology that complies with the statutory mandate (and separately that it has nothing to do with safety)--while the rest of the roster requirements another thing all together. The initial requirements--drop safety and reliability--were a consumer safety regulation, and the add-ons (LCI, manual safety and mag disconnect) protections against consumer stupidity ("I didn't know the gun was loaded, and I'm so sorry my friend...") Do you really think any court is going to find that "safety" requirements with which pretty much all manufacturers can comply are "illegal"? Sorry, I really don't see it happen, especially when compared to the regulatory framework that applies to a plethora of consumer products on the market right now.

The microstamping rule is one thing--since there is no technology that complies with the statutory mandate (and separately that it has nothing to do with safety)--while the rest of the roster requirements another thing all together. The initial requirements--drop safety and reliability--were a consumer safety regulation, and the add-ons (LCI, manual safety and mag disconnect) protections against consumer stupidity ("I didn't know the gun was loaded, and I'm so sorry my friend...") Do you really think any court is going to find that "safety" requirements with which pretty much all manufacturers can comply are "illegal"? Sorry, I really don't see it happen, especially when compared to the regulatory framework that applies to a plethora of consumer products on the market right now.

I think it would be entirely possible for a court (not the 9th, obviously) to rule that guns in common use for lawful purposes cannot be banned for sale because they do not have a certain safety feature desired by a state government.

I think it would be entirely possible for a court (not the 9th, obviously) to rule that guns in common use for lawful purposes cannot be banned for sale because they do not have a certain safety feature desired by a state government.

Just to pick at a nit here, there’s a difference between something being unlawful/illegal and something being unconstitutional.

If voters or the legislature pass a ballot measure or a bill respectively, and required procedures were followed, then constitutional or otherwise it isn’t illegal/unlawful.

Now, Cal DOJ maintains/administers the roster and they have adopted regulations for doing so. While it is possible (i.e. not nonsensical) to find something illegal with how they administer the roster (e.g. adding the Armatix to the roster a few years back may have been illegal) that is generally not what is being argued in these court cases.

While there may be/is a distinction nothing unconstitutional is ever legal.

I won't start getting antsy until Oct 01 rolls around without a decision.

Until then, just relax, enjoy your lives, and let those "wheels of justice" quietly grind away....

I think this is one of the great failings of the populace in the 21st century; letting the wheels of justice grind away.

The founding fathers understood the value of a speedy trial to the accused. This is necessary because their life is passing by and we have limited time on this earth. Time is the one commodity that can never be traded and never increases. So, a long trial or wait for a trial is tantamount to being found guilty right away.

The right to a speedy trial doesn't apply to matters of legislation. They always go against us because they go into affect immediately and then take decades to overturn NO MATTER HOW UNCONSTITUTIONAL THEY ARE.

Look at the microstamping issue. We held it off for a few years, but its enactment is a 100% gun ban which is 100% unconstitutional both in the concept of fair trade and the 2A.

No, I don't agree with being patient. It is our right and our duty to show the powers-that-be that we're fed up with their condescending attitude toward our rights. We need to force them to do their jobs. Stop taking vacations every other week and just get it done. I don't know how to do it, but the time for patiently waiting is past.

__________________
Remember, you can post here because they died over there.

Judges have a lifetime appointment; I don't see SCOTUS issuing a mandamus, 'get off the dime' order.

__________________

No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell

I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

This is a civil case, not a criminal case. No one's freedom is at stake, just their liberty to buy the handgun they want.

This is an appeal, not a trial. We're not waiting for jurors to decide about facts, but judges deciding about law/justice.

We're not talking about someone convicted being on death row for decades. It hasn't even been a year since oral arguments.

I didn't say give the judges a blank check, only that I won't get antsy until Oct 01 -- another 8+ months.

But, everyone, please feel free to ignore me and be if that makes you feel better....

As for me: Pena does not directly affect me and I can't directly affect it, so I'll be until Librarian edits the tread title to say the decision has been released.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rastoff

I think this is one of the great failings of the populace in the 21st century; letting the wheels of justice grind away.

The founding fathers understood the value of a speedy trial to the accused. This is necessary because their life is passing by and we have limited time on this earth. Time is the one commodity that can never be traded and never increases. So, a long trial or wait for a trial is tantamount to being found guilty right away.

The right to a speedy trial doesn't apply to matters of legislation. They always go against us because they go into affect immediately and then take decades to overturn NO MATTER HOW UNCONSTITUTIONAL THEY ARE.

Look at the microstamping issue. We held it off for a few years, but its enactment is a 100% gun ban which is 100% unconstitutional both in the concept of fair trade and the 2A.

No, I don't agree with being patient. It is our right and our duty to show the powers-that-be that we're fed up with their condescending attitude toward our rights. We need to force them to do their jobs. Stop taking vacations every other week and just get it done. I don't know how to do it, but the time for patiently waiting is past.

__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

So is the ultimate answer to these that in order to fight them we need to find defendants prosecuted for such items so it is a criminal case instead of a civil one? I realize no one ever wants to be the test case but perhaps speeding up the process may even make better use of donation monies. Legal fees paid for and bonds covered for a year must be cheaper than the current 9 years we are approaching on this case.

(a) A person in this state who manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state for sale, keeps for sale, offers or exposes for sale, gives, or lends an unsafe handgun shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year.

Misdemeanor convictions seldom get appealed.

__________________

No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell

I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

Very true, and when they do get appealed, it first goes to an appellate division of the exact same Superior Court in the County where the conviction occurred, not a state appellate court. Nobody spends the $$$ to go further, typically.

Would it be possible to gather signatures for a proposition to simply ban the roster? Similar to the current movement to repeal the recent gas tax increases?
Then it could get on the ballot for voters to decide.

__________________
“The Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right.” – Justice Clarence Thomas

Would it be possible to gather signatures for a proposition to simply ban the roster? Similar to the current movement to repeal the recent gas tax increases?

You are not the first to suggest countering CA Legislature gun control laws with the Proposition process. This has been discussed fairly regularly on CalGuns for the 10 years I have been here.

The consensus seems to be that this is a great idea if it passes the voters but a lousy idea if it fails. A failure is an endorsement of the Anti-Second Amendment position by the voters.

It seems that CA voters are inclined in favor of Gun Control.

Also you would need, wise CalGuns heads say, a couple of million bucks to get an effective signature gathering campaign started, more money to finish it, and more money still to run advertising in support of the Gun Rights Proposition.

I think an initiative could work if you took the stance that the roster is limiting because people can't find a gun to fit their hand, or recoil sensitivity. Also if you keep the roster, but allow off roster gun sales, except the FFL has to explain to the person buying an off roster gun that the safety features aren't part of the gun. It seems like it would be common sense to people.

The consensus seems to be that this is a great idea if it passes the voters but a lousy idea if it fails. A failure is an endorsement of the Anti-Second Amendment position by the voters.

It seems that CA voters are inclined in favor of Gun Control.

Also you would need, wise CalGuns heads say, a couple of million bucks to get an effective signature gathering campaign started, more money to finish it, and more money still to run advertising in support of the Gun Rights Proposition.

Money is the fuel for the political process.

True.
Having millions of people like my mother-in-law (anti-2nd Amendment) voting on this matter would probably be a bad thing.

__________________
“The Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right.” – Justice Clarence Thomas

And therein lies the problem. Not only do most voters lack common sense, but most of them don't even understand what the term means. Their propaganda regularly attaches the phrase to just about everything that is, in fact, not common sense at all.

See this 2007 huffpo Microstamping article that says California needs "to take a common-sense step toward ending gun violence and illegal gun trafficking." Yes, they really think that microstamping is common sense... Because they don't think.

No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell

I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

And therein lies the problem. Not only do most voters lack common sense, but most of them don't even understand what the term means. Their propaganda regularly attaches the phrase to just about everything that is, in fact, not common sense at all.

See this 2007 huffpo Microstamping article that says California needs "to take a common-sense step toward ending gun violence and illegal gun trafficking." Yes, they really think that microstamping is common sense... Because they don't think.

We're the only ones that read HuffPo, your idea of "common sense" is more of a caricature than anything real. The vast majority of people don't follow these issue closely at all. Most people (even in California) do think that U.S. citizens should be able to own guns, if the list is so limited that you can't get one I think people might be willing to change the law.

Hmm. Some of Nixon's were good, some bad. It wasn't until Bork that the Right realized how the Left had weaponized the federal courts.

Bybee was a GWB appointee, so that's one likely anti (McKeown) and one likely pro (Bybee), so I won't even guess if we'll win or not with Wallace.

ETA: Watched (rewatched?) the oral arguments. I am more optimistic. From 30:00 onward is the meat. Wallace cuts to the core re. microstamping not being a safety per se issue, but an aid to LE investigators. So I'm putting him on our side.

Depending upon how the court chooses to approach the case (42:25 and following), I could see microstamping shot down (not consumer safety of gun, but public safety of aiding LE), CLI upheld (via "evolving" standards of safety), but not sure which way they (the majority?) will go on MDM.

__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

And therein lies the problem. Not only do most voters lack common sense, but most of them don't even understand what the term means. Their propaganda regularly attaches the phrase to just about everything that is, in fact, not common sense at all.

All “common-sense” means today is “something I wish everyone agreed with me about” and/or “something I want to cast those who don’t agree with me in a negative light over.” It should not be mistaken for a coherent nor thoughtful argument.

Even if it weren’t a hollowed-out term, it’s not inherently positive. After all, there’s a reason the word “counterintuitive” exists.

All “common-sense” means today is “something I wish everyone agreed with me about” and/or “something I want to cast those who don’t agree with me in a negative light over.” It should not be mistaken for a coherent nor thoughtful argument.

Even if it weren’t a hollowed-out term, it’s not inherently positive. After all, there’s a reason the word “counterintuitive” exists.

It's indeed a common propaganda technique, to subtly make those opposed to an idea sound evil and/or ignorant. The more subtle, the better. Saying a bill is common sense, is a subtle way of calling opponents imbeciles. Black Lives Matter is another excellent example of this - it makes anyone who doesn't support their cause sound like they think black lives don't matter, when in fact that is largely not the case. The mistake that most of us make, is in underestimating the creativity of our opponents. They know exactly what to say to get people riled up against what we believe in, and frankly they've been better at it than us for a long time, which is why we are where we are.